Is Keyes the man?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll vote (Buchanan or Browne), but as the years pass I think that voting is becoming more and more irrelevant. For the most part clowns and prostitutes are all that are offered on the ballot.

The cornerstone of our system is the concept of states rights just as much as individual rights. I think the federal republic had a final stake placed in it's heart in 1915 when direct election of federal senators was instituted by constitutional amendment.

Prior to that, senators were appointed by the govenors and state legislators. The amendment mandating an income tax was another great blow. The Founders would have been horrified by both.

The Founders knew that the house could easily be populated by lowlifes who could promise 'bread and circuses' to the masses...the senators were supposed to be above the fray, guarding the rights of their states and the citizens they represented.

Now senators are no more than long-term house representatives. And both are effectively 'elected for life' in most cases. The power of incumbency is awesome.

The Founders also knew that a direct income tax would empower and make likely an oppressive central government.

My personal belief is that we've started and are well along on a march toward a world government and the only thing that will prevent it is an armed uprising of the populace.

I also think a revolution is extremely unlikely. Our rulers can easily keep us occupied with football games, sitcoms and fake elections.
 
416Rigby,
Do I believe that one person and his ideals can still make a difference in
this un-idealistic political world? Indeed I do. To believe otherwise is to
bear a terrible and erroneous burden of cynicism and despair.

You ask why the Libertarian Party is so small when Libertarian ideals are
so close to those of our Founding Fathers. There are many reasons:
- As Dr. Maslow described, “A satisfied need no longer motivates”. Most
Americans don’t realize how free we are, how free we could be, and how
easily we can lose our freedoms.
- Willfully lazy Americans are eager to discard our heritage of Rights in
return for “easy money”.
- Some people have become totally dependent upon government largess.
- Some people are jealous of those who are industrious and successful.
- Many people fear joining an active and responsible movement which
advocates personal values and individual responsibility.
- Freedom, rights, liberty, individual responsibility, industriousness etc.
create a new and frightening paradigm for people who prefer sloth,
subservience or the routine of current party affiliation.

But many Americans are beginning to realize that people such as Dr. Alan
Keyes are correct. His reprimands are just. We are guilty of ignoring -
even facilitating - the demise of our Rights and Liberties. Dr. Keyes
advocates a return to the values of our Forefathers for religious reasons.

The Libertarians advocate a return to the values of our Forefathers for
practical reasons. We can not control our lives if we give away all our
freedoms, rights, privileges, powers, and responsibilities to our
government.

Yes, we could stem this tide in November. Simple arithmetic proves that
80,000,000 gun owners voting for their Right to Keep and Bear Arms
would take away enough votes from the Republicans and Democrats to win
the election. But how will we vote?

I have no choice. I must support our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I can
not vote for the greater or lesser of two evils.
- Otherwise I could not open our family Bible and look at the names of my
relatives who died fighting to preserve these precious rights for me.
- I could not look my children in the eye and say, “You will have to forfeit
freedoms because I was afraid merely to vote for the rights our ancestors
died for.”

And I won’t be voting alone. More and more of those 270 million
Americans are realizing:
- While we are working harder and longer hours, every level of
government works against us to make our work more difficult and less
rewarding due to increasing regulations and taxation.
- Fewer and fewer Americans are working to support increasing
government “assistance” and bureaucracy.
- Government is becoming more intrusive, paternalistic, and tyrannical.
We must regain control of our so-called representatives.

So I must vote for the one party that stands for American ideals - the
Libertarian Party. See how Liberty grows:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25085

If you must continue to vote for the parties that have been stealing away
our freedoms and very sustenance for a hundred years, then at least vote
for the one candidate in those parties who remembers our heritage: the
one who remembers what America was supposed to mean, the only one
who knows he is NOT a mere representative of the United Nations.

Vote for Dr. Alan Keyes.

For just a moment, picture the televised debates which could be between
Keyes and Gore. Do you think for a moment that Little George could
debate Gore as well as Dr. Keyes would?

If you are afraid that Dr. Keyes can not beat Gore for the Presidency, at
least vote for him in the primaries. Show the media darling, George Bush,
that there are still a few American values left in America. Make Little
George back away from his promised gun control programs. Show him
that the biased media polls are NOT going to control your voice in your
family’s future.

Show the Republicans that they must abandon their current path toward
Socialism. It’s your voice, friend. It’s up to you to use it rather than
blend in with the Socialist choir of the Democrats and Republicans.

Make yourself heard. Vote for what you know is right. Don’t waste your
vote and make “wrong” a foregone conclusion.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited January 31, 2000).]
 
DENIS FOR PRESIDENT!!! DENIS FOR PRESIDENT!!!DENIS FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Heck; Why doesn't Texas just go its own way and seceed from the union. REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, With Denis as its President! Maybe he'd make me his vice president. :p
 
Dennis...it would be nice to think 80 million gun owners would vote a single issue...RKBA...unfortunately,reality says this is not the case.I like Alan Keyes...although I think he comes across like he is teaching a Civics class to everyone.There is no way he will make VP...if GW wins...he would not want to be eclipsed by Alan Keyes brilliance.The safe thing to do is to elect a moderately known member of the congress..ala Dan Quayle...or ALGORE type. Certainly no one to steal the Prez's thunder. I think it will be "bidniss" as usual.My main concern is the public's penchant for a divided Gov"t. Some kind of weird "check and balance" thing they think they need to do.If GW gets the nod...Repubs loose the House...and maybe the Senate.That,would be worse as far as more anti-gun legislation.
 
Well, I for one plan on voting for Keyes in the upcoming primary, and sending a letter to Bush warning him that to pick anyone else as his VP is to guarantee that I, and many others, will not vote for him. The case for Keyes as VP:

1. He's capable of doing the main job if Bush dies.

2. He could write speaches for Bush during the campaign.

3. He'd take the race card away from the Democrats.

4. His selection would ease all the doubts we have about Bush. (I said "ease", not eliminate.) Whereas the selection of Dole would confirm them irrevokably.

Mathematically, 80 million gun owners could dictate the outcome of an election. As a practical reality, we won't vote as a block unless it's transparently clear that our rights are on the line, not just down the line, but RIGHT NOW. AND that voting will accomplish something! The GOP, by their betrayal after the '94 election, have very effectively canceled that second factor; Way too many of us understand that electing a "pro-gun" Republican isn't likely to actually accomplish anything.

But... Turnouts in primary elections are WAY lower than in general elections; The number of gun owners who are still politically motivated could very well dictate the outcome of Republican primaries. SO WHY DOES THE BLASTED NRA STAY OUT OF THE PRIMARY CONTESTS???? NOW is when we should be seeing to it that we don't face a "heads you win, tails I lose" scenario in November. NOW is when we have maximum leverage. Heck, one good mailing from the NRA to it's Iowa membership could have given Keyes the victory there! And still could, in many primaries. Even if we didn't give Keyes the nomination outright, we could force Bush to select him as his VP, and get Keyes in 4-8 years.

So why is the NRA sitting on it's hands right now?

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
May your political desires become reality, Dennis!

BTW, I AM voting for Keyes in the primaries (and I am also making my wife vote for him :)).

When I mention Bush, I mean that I am only going to vote for whoever the Republican candidate will be in the general election, against Algore. I positively loathe the guy and want him defeated at any cost.

Just imagine, on election night, turning on the TV to a triumphant Gore, spouting off about how much guncontrol he will so doggedly pursue "because the American People have sent us a message loud and clear"...... And the verious Wolf Blitzers and Matt Lauers starry-eyedly amplifying his populist Baloney.......

I agree with every reason you adduced for the current lack of popularity of the Libertarian party. But to me, that's a sign that they are not ready to be bet upon in a milestone presidential election like this one. If Gore is elected, mark my words, the Democrats will win back the House and Senate, and by this time next year, gun registration and licensing will be a sad reality.

I can guarantee you that this won't happen with Bush, Bauer, Keyes, Forbes or even McCain. That won't mean that the fight won't be over, because guncontrol is still a hot-button issue - it's up to us to win for our cause. Winning should be the priority. The Democrats teach us that unless you win, even small, incremental victories, you LOSE in politics. There is no "good game, Buddy, see you next time"; there is 4 or 8 years of being under - every day, at every congressional sitting, presidential address and judicial ruling. Consider this, Dennis, please.

At a presidential election, the voter with a cause at stake should be machiavellian, not stoically idealistic. He should weigh every consequence of the elections, tally them against their likelyhood and vote accordingly. Stoic idealism is for culture, for your interaction with society, for making your contribution to the ideas. But voting is for winning - period.

Here is how I see the next election:

Bradley: would be a nightmare to the cause - fortunately not a very likely winner.

Gore: the real enemy. Hates guns and has vowed to give us as much guncontrol as possible. Has the President, the media and the establishment on his side - unfortunately may very well be elected.

Bush: the only man who has the resources to beat Gore (whatever these resources may be). Supports the imperfect status quo, as far as GC, but will appoint conservative judges and opposes registration.

Keyes: Perfect on guns and on many other issues. Will get my vote in the primaries, but won't win them. Why? Frankly, I don't know - too many reasons (media, race, "outsider"...?).

3rd Party: sadly absent from any debate. Most Americans don't even know we have a 3rd party. May have a chance at slowly gaining on a lesser level (local, maybe congress), but anyone with a shred of political savy will agree that they don't stand a chance at the 2000 presidential. I know it stinks, but that's the way it is.

It is sad, but only the republican nominee will have a chance of beating Gore. If Keyes gets the nod, so much the better, because he has the best ideas and is a heck of a speaker. But even if it came down to a Bush-Gore showdown, we must do everything in our power to elect Bush and stop Gore. I don't need to give you the reasons - just listen the guy speak and picture yourself hearing him for another 8 years. And if you dislike "media darlings" you are really going to hate Gore.

And voting for anyone else would be a donquixotesque act of stoic sacrifice, because if gunowners don't oppose Gore he may win. And the Lord in Heaven knows I don't want this rotten slug to win.

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
Gary Baur is the only other candidate that could out debate the Democratic candidates IMO. However, I don't think he is as electable as Keys. Baur had some trouble in his campaign ranks that has tanted him (even if unfairly). I have about decided to go for Keyes.
 
Well I can see my good friend and compatriot is at it again, trying rub salt in the "Viable" wound, you make some good points my friend, not all of which I can agree wholeheartedly with. I just filled out my Absentee ballot and I Voted for Mr. Alan Keyes, a Viable Republican, (even if he is a libertarian in Republican clothing! :D) Again if he gets the nod at the national convention, I will vote for him in November if not I will vote for the front running Republican come November. A vote for a Democrat or a vote that causes a Democrat to take office is one and the same as far as I am concerned. We have had this discussion time and again, it gets so heated that I have had to replace 2 keyboards so far, (I am partial to this one)
I have said it before and I will say it again, Vote for Keyes in the Primaries, if he wins the nomination the great!! We go for it with Keyes If not then the message still gets sent to the GW Bush campaign that it needs to do it's homework if it wants the pro gun vote. I will personally send a message to his headquarters saying the same thing, A pro gun stance is a pro gun vote... Dianne Fienstien was right when she said this Presidential election will be decided on the Gun Control issue. Come November We need to be solidified behind one candidate. Or it will be the Divided we fall scenario. Much to Dennis's chagrin, GW Bushes actions speaks volumes (as a Pro Gunner) and much louder than words, find for me where he voted for Gun Control, not his daddy, him. I do not believe he is as anti gun as some would have you believe, so if Mr. Keyes is not in contention come November then GW gets my vote. We all Saw what happened when Perot siphoned off the votes from Bush and then endorsed the Democrats as he stepped out of the running, I cannot and moreover we cannot afford to have that happen again, not if we expect to retain any of our rights.
I believe a Bush/Keyes ticket would blend the best of both worlds and would position the Libertarians for a run at the Whitehouse. By voting for Keyes in the primary you could very well be setting him up for either a Presidential run or a VP slot (due to the amount of votes he receives in the primaries) Either is a plus for us. Here is Keyes's website President Keyes?

------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe
The ANTI-HCI Site!
 
416Rigby, you're 100% right in your assessment of the situation. This is the most important election I can remember, for a variety of reasons, the most critical being RKBA. As much as I like Keyes, I don't see it happening. But I _also_ think that Bush is much more conservative than he's letting on. He's getting hammered on the abortion issue because he's trying to appeal to the centrist vote, and especially to women. I also think he's giving a nod to a couple of anti-gun proposals because the media has defined them as "commonsense," and they'd beat the cr*p out of him if he opposed them. But, that doesn't mean he can't find fault with the bills if they reach his desk, or if they ever even make it out of committee. This is all conjecture on my part, of course, based on the hope that I won't ever be forced to confront the government with my guns.

Dick
 
Brett, you're right on Keyes as VP. Let me add that:

1. His talk/actions as very conservative religiously plays well these days with the public at large, and is more good than bad for pulling over centrists like soccer moms.

2. He'll pull in many of the independents that might otherwise vote for Buchanan and cost Bush (or whomever) dearly.

3. Abolish the IRS: Who's against that!?!
 
My Republican Friends,

I understand your reasoning - I simply disagree both on moral and practical
grounds.

By refusing to support the Second Amendment you support its destruction. Remember that. You will be forced to admit that during the demise of our freedoms. If I live through all this, I will see to it - as will others who voted for freedom rather than appeasement.

Is “voting for anyone [other than Bush] ... a donquixotesque act of stoic
sacrifice”? I think not. My support of the Second Amendment and our
Constitution is not a futile, unthinking act. Nor were the efforts of our
Founding Fathers, or Washington at Valley Forge, or the Marines at Iwo
Jima, or a thousand other acts which we call heroism when, in fact, these
people only did what they knew was right.

They shunned the “easy way”. They chose to follow the rougher road, the
morally right road and do what in their hearts and minds they knew would
“secure the Blessing of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity...”

They put their lives, their families, their properties, their entire livelihoods
at risk. All we need to do is vote. Simply cast a vote for freedom.

But, as you accuse me of being unrealistic, you support the very concepts
you condemn! Blind to the fact that both the “greater” and “lesser” evil
lead to the same destruction, you vote against the goodness and right you say
you believe in.

You admit, no, you seek out, you embrace defeat! You struggle to
justify your fears (What if Gore wins?). You make up excuses in an attempt
to justify voting to weaken and destroy our freedoms. “Tactics”, you say.
“Viable”, you say.

You bravely quote Patrick Henry, “... give me liberty or give me death!” and
then show the shallowness of your bravery by saying, “Give me some gun
control to avoid more gun control.”

Some may consider it too simple to vote the way we talk - to support our
freedoms by standing together and saying , “NO!” to further infringements,
intrusions, deviations, and perversions of our Liberty.

Instead, employing so-called “tactics”, we are told to vote for lesser gun
control to avoid the greater gun control. Admit defeat. Admit we engage
only in a holding action which we must eventually lose. Prolong the
“inevitable” destruction of our freedoms and inflict subservience upon our
children rather than to fight the good fight.

Look deeper into your argument. How can you support something by voting
for its demise? It is the world’s simplest, clearest non sequiter.

Someday you or your widow may have to explain to your children and
grandchildren how you defeated the very freedoms you so loudly promised
to support. I won’t. My wife will tell my grandchildren that Grandpa fought
for American Rights. He spent hours, days, years, even decades fighting to
regain what his fellow men so thoughtlessly threw away out of self-doubt
and fear of defeat.

I will NOT vote for defeat. I WILL vote for freedom and I challenge you, I
ask you, if I must I will beg you to reconsider your self-fulfilling prophecy of
defeat and servitude. Vote for freedom. It’s the right thing to do.

To the defeatists who say, “We have no chance! We dare not support our
freedoms because others don’t!” I give you the immortal words of another
group of Americans faced with certain defeat at Bastogne, “Nuts!”

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Monkeyleg: I just have a hard time buying this concept of the really, truly, on our side politician, who PRETENDS, mind you, that he's not on our side, because he thinks it's the only way to get elected. When was the last time you actually saw a candidate run as anti-gun, and then turn out to be pro-gun once they took office? I've seen the opposite WAY too many times!

The fact is, there's hard evidence, in the form of exit polling, that outside of a few liberal bastions, being pro-gun helps you get elected, and at worst does you no harm. Outside of those few blighted areas, politicians believe that they have to be anti-gun to be elected because of WISHFUL THINKING. They want to believe we're that weak. And if they think they have to be anti-gun to be elected, what are they going to think they have to be to be RE-elected?

Sorry, if a candidate talks anti-gun during the campaign, it's because he's ANTI-GUN. Bush might be less anti-gun than Gore, in fact he probably is. But let's not pretend he's anything other than the lesser of our two enemies!

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
Dennis, I am sorry that, once again, we have incensed you into believing that all of us who will not vote libertarian are anti-RKBA.

You make a very strong case for your deeply-held values and uncompromising morals, but you always fail to address the following question:

If Gore gets elected and the Democrats regain control of Congress, not to mention the Supreme Court, what happens to our gun-rights then? Really, answer that. And don't turn it around and talk about Bush; just stick to the Gore scenario.

You belong to the school of thought where there is only ONE victory and ONE defeat. A libertarian in the White House or anybody else. No different shades, just black and white.

Yes, morals are black and white (even to us "Republicans" that you so condemn), and so are ideas and ideals. But not politics. Nothing can be black and white when you have to get 200,000,000 voters together on something. Heck, not even us gunowners can seem to agree on anything. Some form of compromise is inevitable in the democratic process: you can only avoid it in a totalitarian regime or in a phantomatic society where everyone agrees 100% on every issue (an ant-colony is probably the only example).

Instead, some of us see it this way. There can be many shades of victory (depending on who gets elected on the "right"), but only one scary, frightful, worst-of-all and alas very likely defeat: Gore in the White House.

All the great deeds you mentioned (Iwo Jima, Yorktown etc) were all battlefield victories, where countless resources and supplies were utilized and at least 50% of the Country was behind the combatants. Here we are talking about a purely political issue about which many people, unfortunately don't give a rat's because they don't know any better.

I personally don't care if my grandkids will not praise my staunchness on any issue, as long as they are free. And I am afraid (yes, I have no trouble admitting it) of a Gore administration and its immediate consequences on our Rights. I was there when it happened in England, God knows I don't want it to happen here.

Be sure that if it ever came to defend this Country with my own blood, so that my (and your) kids and grandkids can be free, I won't think about it twice. But, please, don't condemn me for thinking that there is a MARKED difference between a Bush (or McCain, or Forbes, or Bauer, of Keyes) administration and a Gore one, and for fearing the consequences of the latter.

Gore is an admitted socialist who fears and hates the concept of private ownership of firearms. He won't even allow a remotely fair debate on the subject, and we all know it. Can we be blamed for hedging ourselves against this?

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top